The Washington Institute for Near East Policy released a chilling report about Iranian Nukes that said in part:
If the international community appears unable to stop Iran’s nuclear progress, Israel may decide to act unilaterally. Whatever Americans may think, Israeli leaders seem convinced that at least for now, they have a military option. However, Israelis see the option fading over the next one to two years, not only because of Iran’s nuclear progress and dispersion of its program but also because improved Iranian air defenses, especially the expected delivery of the S-300 surface-to-air missile system from Russia, are seen by Israel as seriously limiting its military options. Israel therefore may feel compelled to act before the option disappears. If successful, a strike would be publicly condemned but quietly welcomed by some. Success, however, is an uncertain outcome. Even a successful strike might slow Iran only temporarily. And many would see it as both a failure of and a setback for the treaty-based nonproliferation system
Israelis surely don’t welcome a war in which. Yet they have no choice but to defend themselves against an enemy that promises to obliterate them if Iran acquires the weapon to do so. The clock is ticking, Iran is not only close to developing that weapon, but the Russian weapons to protect them are close to being delivered. The tragic paradox of the wasted “diplomatic dance” of the past few years, is that the diplomatic and intelligence gyrations offered in the name of avoiding war with Iran, have most probably brought Israel and Iran closer to the brink than if forceful international action was taken earlier.
Iran is much stronger now, showing once again that appeasement ultimately ends in war.
Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?
SOS Clinton spent the last last few days in the Middle East. Iran was one of the subjects on the Agenda. Did Israel Tell Clinton that time is running out? Because Israel will act alone to protect herself:
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER,WASHINGTON – Israel is seriously considering taking unilateral military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a report by top US political figures and experts released Wednesday.
The report also says Israel’s time frame for action is growing shorter, not only because of Iranian advances, but because Teheran might soon acquire upgraded air defenses and disperse its nuclear program to additional locations.
The report, “Preventing a Cascade of Instability,” was put out by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). It also argues that international sanctions against Iran need to be intensified urgently for the engagement the Obama administration is planning with Teheran to be effective.
An early draft of the report was endorsed by Dennis Ross before he withdrew upon joining the Obama administration, in which he is serving as a special representative dealing with various countries in the region, including Iran. Senator Evan Bayh of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Congressman Gary Ackerman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East, were among the signatories.
The bipartisan group also recommended increasing security guarantees and the supply of missile defenses and other protective measures to allies in the Middle East, both to reassure them of America’s commitment to them and to dampen the perceived effectiveness, and hence appeal, of nuclear weapons for Iran.
But the report, several of whose authors met with high-level Israeli officials to assess their perspective, notes that Israel is not interested in becoming part of an American nuclear umbrella, even as Gulf countries want more assurances on that front.
“A declared US guarantee would clarify a situation of ambiguity that may already work to Israel’s advantage,” the report notes. Also, “many Israelis fear that a declared US guarantee could come at the price of circumscribing Israel’s freedom of action in confronting existential dangers.”
“It’s quite serious in acting on its own about a nuclear-armed Iran,” former US ambassador to the United Nations Nancy Soderberg, one of the task force members who traveled to the region to research the report, said at a WINEP event held Wednesday on the report’s release.
She noted that the timetable for an Israeli attack might be “significantly” moved up if Jerusalem believed Russia was going to make good on its pledge to supply Iran with the S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which would greatly complicate any Israeli attack.
If the delivery does occur, the report recommends more arms sales to Israel, such as more modern aircraft, so it can maintain its military edge.
Later, she said that the aim of the report was to come up with strategies where neither the United States nor Israel was at the point of launching military action.
“You’ve kind of lost the ballgame at that point,” she said.
To that end, the 10-page document urges more international sanctions and expanding financial pressure taken by the US Treasury, by creating similar programs at the US Commerce and State Departments.
The study stresses the importance of having a united global front and pushes for intensified diplomacy with Russia to both make sanctions more effective and to persuade the Russians not to deliver the S-300 system.
“Iran does not want to be isolated on the international stage: It is not North Korea. The broader the international consensus, the better. The repeated shows of unanimity by the UN Security Council seem to have impressed Iran more than the limited economic or security impact of the sanctions imposed thus far,” the report states, in making the case for more sanctions.
At the same time, it contends that aggressive engagement is needed because “another important goal is to show the Middle East and the world that the United States will go the extra mile to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Some circles in countries friendly to the United States now wonder – without reason – if Washington is as much an obstacle to resolving the nuclear impasse as is Teheran.”
Even if engagement, sanctions and other measures prove ineffective, the report warns against sanctioning a “fallback” policy where Iran is allowed to have some, even if limited, capacity to enrich uranium in its territory.
“Iran’s having a latent capability to quickly make nuclear weapons could lead to much the same risk of cascading instability as an Iran with an actual weapon,” it reads, pointing to the risk for nuclear proliferation, Iranian regional hegemony and more.
The report makes no mention of the presidential elections in Iran this June, which could see the more moderate Muhammad Khatami replace fiery current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Some analysts have suggested that the Obama administration wait to either engage or press for further sanctions until after the campaign, so as not to increase the likelihood of Admadinejad winning.
But the task force calls for immediate action, arguing that the president is less important than Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, in making decisions and that the top priority should be creating leverage heading into negotiations.
An Iranian professor in the audience at Wednesday’s WINEP conference, however, said that increasing pressure would increase extremism and Iranian hard-line leaders’ sticking to the nuclear program.
WINEP executive director Robert Satloff, who presided over the conference, responded that the report’s recommendations also included many incentives for Iran should it cooperate with the United States.
He also said Iran was already beginning to reap some of the rewards of influence just by having been successful in advancing its nuclear program, and that this report was intended to stanch that progress.
“Even without testing a nuclear weapon or declaring the ability to do so, Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons capability is already having a substantial impact on the Middle East,” it says. “Time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success.”